- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Active Shooter: Brown University
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:05 pm to Cosmo
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:05 pm to Cosmo
quote:
protecting yourself from the king of england
The King of England is happy to be a constitutional monarch. He is a servant of the people of the UK and adheres to and is held to a much higher moral and ethical standard than elected head of states accross the world.
This is not 1774 it is 2025...250 years between them.
2
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:06 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
But compare Austrlia's per capita homicide rate with that of the US and while at it compared that with some more advanced third world countries as well.
Lets compare demographics first
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:07 pm to mike4lsu
Everyone report this idiot for derailing the thread with spam.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:09 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Empty platitudes, zero logic and blaming whitey.
Not blaming any demographic group. Just expressing and opinion on guns.
My zero logic works well across the world....
Empty platitudes.... Believing in law enforcement is the right thing not a empty platitude.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:10 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Lets compare demographics first
Demographics have nothing to do with this.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:12 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
Demographics have nothing to do with this.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:16 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
Demographics have nothing to do with this.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:17 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
You think guns would work against armies with tanks and figher planes and bomber aircrafts.
What about Vietnam, Korea, or Afghanistan? A determined populace armed with firearms can defeat a better equipped military force on their own ground.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:18 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
Demographics have nothing to do with this.
This coming from the tard who says only LEOs should be allowed to have firearms.
*laughs in Uvalde*
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:21 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
If guns are off the market, no one will have the means to acquire them.
This is really naive and stupid thinking. Guns are harder to get, legally, in Chicago, than most places, yet has the highest murder rate in the country. Explain.
quote:
Without guns communities, schools and universities become safer.
Most women who are murdered by men, are not carrying a gun, nor are they murdered by someone with a gun. Guns, especially for the vulnerable (women) are used to defend themselves. How does a 130 lb. woman defend herself from an unarmed 220+ lb man? Hopes and dreams?
quote:
Guns are for just one thing....killing....and that is a bad thing
Killing animals for food is a good thing.
Defending oneself against violence is a good thing.
If you are so black and white with this, then you are hopelessly fighting a losing battle.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:24 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
If guns are off the market, no one will have the means to acquire them
lol
lmao even
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:30 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
You think guns would work against armies with tanks and figher planes and bomber aircrafts.
I think the fact that there are over 100 million citizens with firearms int his country would assure that any invading force think twice.
If you are referring to our own government, government won't start off with tanks and planes. If government started abusing power and attempting to seize all power from the people they'd do it in stages.
1) Enlist the help of "guns are bad" tards like yourself to try and get lawful gun owners to submit their weapons.
2) Enlist LEO to forcibly take guns. Those LEO officers that go along with it, will have trouble forcibly taking guns away from 115 million people.
3) If that fails, then they go with tanks and jets is your take?
a) You'll need a complicit military to do this, which most vets and active military own personal guns.
b) You'll clearly be instigating a civil war, which means there will be radical opposition by other members of Congress and revolts within the free states.
c) There are few things that people would justly take up arms for. Family is 1. Religion another. Freedom is another. You think just because some members of some force has a tank, that people will stop fighting? Look at the french resistence in WW2.
d) and most important, your entire reasoning, tanks and planes, as to why guns don't work, in and of itself proves why we need guns. Your entire scenario assumes an authoritarian government forcefully stripping away our rights. And you just want everyone to willfully surrender their guns before the government becomes authoritarian because the government will have to become authoritarian to remove the citizens of their rights.
Whose side are you on?
This post was edited on 12/18/25 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:34 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
You think guns would work against armies with tanks and figher planes and bomber aircrafts.
Worked pretty damn well for the Taliban that you constantly cheer for retard.
I'm actually impressed with your level of stupidity on display in this thread.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:36 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
Most of the active shooters look more like you and less like the people you are referring to.
How many times are you going to be wrong in this thread?
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:39 pm to BugAC
quote:
Whose side are you on?
GOVERN ME HARDER DADDY!
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:42 pm to mike4lsu
The people who fly those planes, maintain those tanks, and keep the whole military machine supplied have to sleep somewhere. As well as their families. If things got ugly the military would be neutralized pretty quickly. Besides, a good percentage of the armed forces would be on the side of The 2ndAmendment supporters.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:51 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Besides, a good percentage of the armed forces would be on the side of The 2ndAmendment supporters.
This. Same with LEO. The small minority that want guns taken away by force are only a majority in hyper leftist cities like Seattle. And, ironically, they've already taken away the guns and look at how shitty the crime is there. Didn't they firebomb and takeover the police after they defunded it? Hey mike, how do you justify that? You are advocating "let the police handle it" meanwhile you same people were the ones marching and supporting "defund the police".
Posted on 12/18/25 at 1:26 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
if guns are made illegal, only criminals will own guns.
This is plain false.
nope, it's completely accurate
Posted on 12/18/25 at 1:46 pm to MorbidTheClown
Now they are saying it could be related to the MIT killing?
Posted on 12/18/25 at 1:49 pm to GeauxTigers123
Yesterday the Boston investigators said they knew of no links. Today it is said they are seeing if there are any links.
Could just be due diligence, could be something specific like the weapin used.
Would seem to answer that the MIT professor incident wasn't from someone in his life. (Partner/neighbor/known associate)
Could just be due diligence, could be something specific like the weapin used.
Would seem to answer that the MIT professor incident wasn't from someone in his life. (Partner/neighbor/known associate)
This post was edited on 12/18/25 at 1:50 pm
Page 27 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News